A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

(d) For this reason he wrote it in Hebrew, or rather in Syriack.] Papias cited by Eusebius, l. 3. of his History, Chapter the last. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. St. Jerome in his Preface to the Evangelists, in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and in several other places. Eusebius, l. 3. c. 18. the Au∣thor of the Work upon St. Matthew attributed to St. Chrysostome, St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 29. & 57. The Author of the Abridgment of Scripture, at∣tributed to St. Athanasius. St. Cyril, Catech. 14. St. Austin, l. 1. de Consensu Evangel. cap. 2. testifie, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in Hebrew, that is to say, in Syriack. St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome say, that it was written in the Language of the Country, which was the Chal∣dee or Syriack Tongue mixt with Hebrew words, which is commonly called the Hebrew Tongue in the New Testament. St. Jerome tells us plain∣ly, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in this Tongue, for in his Commentary upon the 12th Chapter of this Gospel, he says, that some Persons were of opinion, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the Original Hebrew of St. Mat∣thew; and in his second Dialogue against the Pelagians, he says, that the Gospel of the Na∣zarenes was written in Chaldee or Syriack with Hebrew Characters. Those that are of the contrary opinion, who maintain, that St. Mat∣thew wrote it originally in Greek, as Grotius well observes, reject the unanimous Consent of the Ancients without any appearance of Reason. Let us for once examine the Conjectures of a certain Author, that is of this opinion: He says, that the words Emanuel, Eli, Lamma Sabactha∣ni, Aceldama, and other Syriack Terms are ex∣plained there; but this does not at all prove, that this Gospel was not written in Syriack, for otherwise we ought to say, that several Books of the Old Testament were not written in Hebrew, because even in those Books we have the Hebrew Terms explained after the same manner; for ex∣ample, Gen. 31. v. 49. Galaad, id est t•…•…us te∣stis, 35. v. 18. Be••••••i, id est, filius dol••ris mei; Exod. 12. v. 11. Pesach, id est, transitus Domini; and 16. v. 15. Manhu quod significat quid est hoc. These Explications are not to be found in the Hebrew, but have been added by the Interpre∣ter; and we ought to make the same judgment of these passages in St. Matthew. They pretend still, that these Fathers never saw the Original of St. Matthew, that they said it was Hebrew, on∣ly because the Gospel of the Nazarenes was in Hebrew, which is extremely different from that of St. Matthew. To this it is answered, 1. That we cannot say this of the most ancient Fathers, as Papias, St. Irenaeus, &c. 2. That although the Gospel of the Nazarenes was different from that of St. Matthew, yet it might very well be taken from the Original of St. Matthew, in which the Hereticks had infected, and altered abundance of things.